What do I think?Since we gave a [CR3] to the EF 24-70 f/4L IS rumor, there have been a lot of questions, confusion and opinions about why Canon would make such a lens. Especially since the very good EF 24-105 f/4L IS is already in the lineup. I just wanted to give my opinion about this upcoming lens, one that I think makes a lot of sense. I’ll do this in FAQ format from emails I have received over the last week or so.

This is from the opinion of a photographer, I can’t touch on the video angle. As Dan Chung suggested, videographers do prefer the additional reach of the 24-105.

Will the EF 24-105 f/4L IS remain current?I do not know if the EF 24-105 f/4L IS will remain current in the Canon lineup. My gut tells me it will slowly disappear into the sunset until it’s gone, so it could last another 6 months or so. We’ll have to wait and see the official word from Canon.

Why does the f/4 version get IS and the f/2.8 version does not?I think the biggest reason it’s omitted in the f/2.8 version is size/bulk. Canon’s goal was to make the version II of the lens a lot lighter than the predecessor, and they accomplished that. I also don’t believe EOS 5D Mark III & EOS-1D X shooters need a stabilized lens for event or portrait work. It’s not genrally considered a “walk-around” lens. The f/4 version is going to be mated to a lot of EOS 6D’s, and may be the only lens people have on the camera at the beginning. IS is a nice feature if you’re travelling and shooting still things in low light.

There will always be some controversy on this one.

Why would I buy the EF 24-70 f/4L IS over the EF 24-105 f/4L IS, when I get 35mm more reach with the latter?First, I’d like to mention that the new EF 24-70 f/4L IS may be longer at the 70mm end then the model suggests. Lets wait and see if it’s actually 70mm, as it could be significantly longer. “24-70″ has appeal from a marketing standpoint, as it’s a highly desired focal range. If you look at the EF 70-200 f/4L IS, it’s actually quite a bit longer at the “70mm” end.

Second, I have worked in photo retail and own a lens rental company and I can honestly say that no one ever bought or rented an 24-105 f/4L IS over a 24-70 f/2.8L because of the additional 35mm of range. People were into the 24-105 because of price, size and IS. Now compared to an f/4 version of the 24-70, would people choose the 24-105 over it for the 35mm? I think very few would given the new lenses attributes. The reduced weight, better hybrid IS system, and most likely better optics will be big selling points. The much improved minimum focusing distance of 0.2m will also be a big deal as you’re getting a near macro lens as well. I also think that people will like not having overlap if they have a wonderful EF 70-200 f/4L IS, or 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS. Put a 17-40 f/4L in your kit and you have 3 lightweight lenses that would make a terrific kit for the amateur and professional that doesn’t need light gathering ability.

Now, there are definitely people out there that will disagree and prefer the 105mm on the long end, I can only tell you what I have experienced. Maybe Canadians are weird? :)

Thirdly, there may even people that own both of the new 24-70s. f/2.8 for your event photography and the f/4L IS when you’re out and about.

What about the new EF 35 f/2 IS?Great, if it performs like the new EF 24 f/2.8 IS and EF 28 f/2.8 IS lenses, it will be a keeper. This lens will probably become Canon’s most popular non L prime pretty quickly as it will make a nice pairing with the lightweight EOS 6D, I am really looking forward to trying one out. I also think if it’s priced liked the other new non L primes, people won’t mind as much due to the f/2.

If those specs are true, a 0.7x max mag of the 24-70/4 is pretty darn close to a true 1:1 macro, and much higher than any other non-macro lens in the lineup (the 24-105 is 0.3x, 24-70 is 0.29x, 24-70 II is 0.21x). It's even higher than the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. The use of H-IS would be consistent with that high max mag (the only other lens that has it is the 100L Macro, but PowerShots also have H-IS since they have very close MFDs).

So, this lens is a combination general purpose zoom and near-macro lens, something nonexistent in the current lineup. For people who like to shoot close ups (flowers, jewelry, etc.) this is like getting two lenses in one.

If those specs are true, a 0.7x max mag of the 24-70/4 is pretty darn close to a true 1:1 macro, and much higher than any other non-macro lens in the lineup (the 24-105 is 0.3x, 24-70 is 0.29x, 24-70 II is 0.21x). It's even higher than the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. The use of H-IS would be consistent with that high max mag (the only other lens that has it is the 100L Macro, but PowerShots also have H-IS since they have very close MFDs).

So, this lens is a combination general purpose zoom and near-macro lens, something nonexistent in the current lineup. For people who like to shoot close ups (flowers, jewelry, etc.) this is like getting two lenses in one.

I just updated the post to include the 0.2m MFD, that's a pretty big deal.

I think this just makes life a lot harder for the potential buyer. What to buy? Do any of these optimise what a standard Zoom should offer??

I still think the 17-55mm F2.8 offers the best all round want from a photographer for a standard zoom range. But they dont make one for full frame which would be the 24-70mm F2.8 IS.

24-105mm F4 is a great focal length for a walk around lens, It is also not a bad price, good IQ and has IS.

24-70 F2.8 is in the stratosphere for most in terms of price. Its really ridiculous it would take nearly two weddings to afford the purchase price.

Wouldn't IS on a F2.8 make it a great walk around lens? Yes you loose 35mm but this would make it more useable in low light, 1/30th and below is the norm in low light trying to balance ISO with quality. So this would be stuck to your camera most of the time, and means you dont have to jump up the ISO.

24-70mm F4, ok IQ will be better and the MFD is a really good feature compared to the 24-105mm but I think Canon should be introducing better minimum focus distances on standard zooms anyway. If this is to be a walk around lens then the 35mm is quite a big deal. Its harder to use this in a professional sense because you have to cover a large light variance which is why 2.8 is more suitable.

What do people want? Well personally I like the 24-70mm focal length. I also like the F2.8 for light gathering, but I also find IS very useful, however steady you are you get camera shake at lower shutter speeds.

So here is the conundrum, to fill two needs, you would need to buy two lenses, the 24-105mm for walk around and the 24-70mm MKI F2.8. Because the 24-105 fills the need of only taking one lens with you, and the 24-70 fills the need of low light shooting for wedding photography. An F4 would be useless as a standard zoom for wedding photography. I like the 24-105mm range for walk around give you good scope, but 24-70 is also a nice range. But this defies the point of a standard zoom its supposed to fulfill that need, if you need two lenses to cover a standard range then somethings not quite right.

But at the moment non of the above offer everything what people seem to want.

IMO the best lens to buy atm is a second hand 24-70mm MKI 2.8 most are £1000 cheaper than the 24-70MKII and £100 more than the 24-105mm but offers the 2.8 over the F4 and great IQ.

Would I care if the lens was heavier to include IS, would I hell. But it would also be beyond £2k which is also ridiculous.

So really there is no good choice. Seems you cant have everything you want in a standard zoom... yet if you go crop then you can have everything in the 17-55mm 2.8 IS. Ridiculous.

I think this just makes life a lot harder for the potential buyer. What to buy? Do any of these optimise what a standard Zoom should offer??

I still think the 17-55mm F2.8 offers the best all round want from a photographer for a standard zoom range. But they dont make one for full frame which would be the 24-70mm F2.8 IS.

24-105mm F4 is a great focal length for a walk around lens, It is also not a bad price, good IQ and has IS.

24-70 F2.8 is in the stratosphere for most in terms of price. Its really ridiculous it would take nearly two weddings to afford the purchase price.

Wouldn't IS on a F2.8 make it a great walk around lens? Yes you loose 35mm but this would make it more useable in low light, 1/30th and below is the norm in low light trying to balance ISO with quality. So this would be stuck to your camera most of the time, and means you dont have to jump up the ISO.

Except losing the f/2.8 for some AF points, the 24-105mm f/4 IS is the FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 on crop, but better, in focal range and DOF

VORON

I don't think it's a good idea to replace 24-105/4 by 24-70/4. This year I've changed my 24-70/2.8L to 24-105 because of that extra 35 mm at tele end. I went to EOS 5D classic and I've noticed that 70 mm is too short on FF for shooting in mountains and so on (if I'm able to carry only one lens). 24-105 is a more versatile lens for a tourist like me.

So F4 on the 24-105 has the same light gathering ability as a 2.8 on a crop camera!? The DOF might be the similar but still means you can shoot in lower light!?

You can shoot in lower light, potentially, when comparing 17-55/2.8 on APS-C to 24-105/4 on FF - the larger sensor gathers more total light, meaning >1.3-stops better ISO performance, so you bump the ISO a stop to compensate, and you still have less noise at f/4 on FF, or you bump the ISO even more for the same noise and a faster shutter speed. Really - all you lose is the f/2.8-sensitive AF point(s).

So with the new 24, 28 and now 35 being f/2.8 or f/2 IS lens, I would expect to see a 50 IS at f/2 that will replace the old 1.4. This would leave the cheap 1.8, a new IS, and the L--I don't see a 4th 50 in the line up so the 1.4 will go.

I see no way that Canon would make a 50 1.4 IS lens because it would cut into 1.2L sales. I predict we will see it Q1 2013.